Irish Times Tea Party Article

Denerick

By the way, RE the auto industry bailout, the right of center magazine The Economist initially criticised Obama for it but then praised him for standing firm, overseeing the company's return to profitability, and ultimately to its re-privatisation.

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

The tea party is just as against bush and his big govt spending as it is against obama!!!!!! stop trying to imply that the colour of obama's skin is the reason why people don't like his policies!!!!!!!

Funny enough the mass insanity must be a wild coincidence with having a black president in the White House. The tea party members couldn't give a damn about Bush era profligacy and fiscal irresponsibility - because he was one of them - a 'conservative', a Christian, a bigot. In other words, a hypocryte.

is "bull****" your only response to the healthcare issue? that issue was one of the fundamental drivers of the tea party.

Because it isn't even remotely 'socialist'. In fact the public option was clearly the most rational solution, but considering the opposition revolved around rubbish and insanity like labelling everyone 'else' 'Hitler' and 'Stalin' in the same breath... yeah. I smell bullshít.

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

He can't sell them back quickly enough.



Bush? TARP?



BUSH?



Bullshít.



BUSH???



No. I can think of a word for you, but I'm much too polite.

Where were you between 2000-2008 by the way? Is it a wild coincidence that the present President is a ******?

What has Bush got to do with it? I am not a fan of Bush. Look at my other posts on this forum. You're pulling out the race card again. I disagree with Obama on his economic policy not his skin colour.

Denerick

mgmt wrote: »

What has Bush got to do with it? I am not a fan of Bush. Look at my other posts on this forum. You're pulling out the race card again. I disagree with Obama on his economic policy not his skin colour.

All that stuff happened during Bushes tenure. You were likely one of the cheerleaders of the Patriot Act. You see, he was one of 'you', Obama is one of 'them'. Don't try and deceive us with this talk of principle, idealogy, or 'the American way'.

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

All that stuff happened during Bushes tenure. You were likely one of the cheerleaders of the Patriot Act. You see, he was one of 'you', Obama is one of 'them'. Don't try and deceive us with this talk of principle, idealogy, or 'the American way'.

Bush was a neocon. I did not support him. I did not support Bush signing the Patriot act. I did not support Obama signing the Patriot act. You are blinded by your bigotry.

Denerick

mgmt wrote: »

Bush was a neocon. I did not support him. I did not support Bush signing the Patriot act. I did not support Obama signing the Patriot act. You are blinded by your bigotry.

It just so happens that these mass retarded rallies only took place when a black president was in the white house.

I wonder why you didn't protest quite so loudly when bush was in there.

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

It just so happens that these mass retarded rallies only took place when a black president was in the white house.

I wonder why you didn't protest quite so loudly when bush was in there.

Well I did take to the streets against the invasion of Iraq at the time. So, nobody can protest against Obama just because he's black. I guess Hillary Clinton is a racist? And all of her supporters??

Denerick

mgmt wrote: »

Well I did take to the streets against the invasion of Iraq at the time. So, nobody can protest against Obama just because he's black. I guess Hillary Clinton is a racist? And all of her supporters??

Thats not it and you know it. The tea partiers sprung up out of nowhere protesting against fiscal profligacy.

I find it HILARIOUS that they would do so after 8 years of irresponsible fiscal policy from one of their own. I find it even more HILARIOUS that they only began to do so when a black guy entered the white house.

You want to know my honest opinion? Eventually one of these deranged nuts is going to try and kill the President. Whatever happens after that, Americans will realise what these whackjobs really represent and what lies down the road if they continue to indulge them - and after that the tea partiers will be resigned to history, maligned much like the nativist know nothings of the 19th century.

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

Thats not it and you know it. The tea partiers sprung up out of nowhere protesting against fiscal profligacy.

I find it HILARIOUS that they would do so after 8 years of irresponsible fiscal policy from one of their own. I find it even more HILARIOUS that they only began to do so when a black guy entered the white house.

You want to know my honest opinion? Eventually one of these deranged nuts is going to try and kill the President. Whatever happens after that, Americans will realise what these whackjobs really represent and what lies down the road if they continue to indulge them - and after that the tea partiers will be resigned to history, maligned much like the nativist know nothings of the 19th century.

I find your posts to be hilarious. You're not addressing what mgmt is saying. you're just using the same old dismissive rhetoric.

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

I find your posts to be hilarious. You're not addressing what mgmt is saying. you're just using the same old dismissive rhetoric.

How so? Mgmt is saying he/she protested the Iraq war. Fair enough. Maybe he did.

What I'm saying is that the rabble popularly known as the 'tea party' didn't exist during Bush era profligacy, because they didn't care. I'm not necessarily saying they exist solely because Obama is black, but his political party is at least relevant, and I don't think its a wild coincidence that these nuts came about around the same time America had its first black President.

Its and us V them thing. In europe we have trade unionists and irrelevant far left socialists out on the streets protesting. In America you have the middle class and far right nutters out on the streets protesting. It does display the cultural differences, but both are equally pernicious and deluded.

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

Thats not it and you know it. The tea partiers sprung up out of nowhere protesting against fiscal profligacy.

I find it HILARIOUS that they would do so after 8 years of irresponsible fiscal policy from one of their own. I find it even more HILARIOUS that they only began to do so when a black guy entered the white house.

You want to know my honest opinion? Eventually one of these deranged nuts is going to try and kill the President. Whatever happens after that, Americans will realise what these whackjobs really represent and what lies down the road if they continue to indulge them - and after that the tea partiers will be resigned to history, maligned much like the nativist know nothings of the 19th century.

There is always someone who wants to kill the American president.


They didn't spring up out of nowhere. It was after billions of their money was been wasted on ****e by the government. Quit with the racism nonsense.

20Cent

Is it just me or are the Tea Party supporters here acting exactly like Taibbi's article describes them its like a parody?

If ye are having a laugh well done!

Scofflaw

veritable wrote: »

Terry wrote:

Did you report Jon Stewart to the FCC for the same remark?

I reported it because it is against the us politics forum rules to use it, Mod.

Indeed it is - use of the various "teabag" epithets to describe the Tea Party are not acceptable, if anyone is in any doubt.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Exile 1798

mgmt wrote: »

Well I did take to the streets against the invasion of Iraq at the time. So, nobody can protest against Obama just because he's black. I guess Hillary Clinton is a racist? And all of her supporters??

I find it a little hard to believe that someone who thinks and argues with platitudes and churns out Fox News talking points "took to the streets" in protest against the Iraq invasion.

Why do you believe Fox/Talk radio/Right Wing websites now, but not then? The trash media which you so obviously consume today was the same media that was cheer leading for the Iraq war back in 2002/03.

I would think that the experience of being on the right side of the Iraq debate and seeing the outright propaganda being pumped out by the FNC-RNC machine would make a person more discerning, not less. In other words, if what you're saying is true, you've travelled the exact opposite road of what most every opponent of the Iraq invasion would have done.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

You want to know my honest opinion? Eventually one of these deranged nuts is going to try and kill the President. Whatever happens after that, Americans will realise what these whackjobs really represent and what lies down the road if they continue to indulge them - and after that the tea partiers will be resigned to history, maligned much like the nativist know nothings of the 19th century.

I agree.

It's one of the tragedies of American politics that only the good get assassinated. Lincoln, Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King. Meanwhile bastards like Nixon get to die of natural causes.

mgmt

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I agree.

It's one of the tragedies of American politics that only the good get assassinated. Lincoln, Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King. Meanwhile bastards like Nixon get to die of natural causes.

Don't worry, Obama's Targeted Killing Program will get rid of all the "bastards".

Denerick

mgmt wrote: »

Don't worry, Obama's Targeted Killing Program will get rid of all the "bastards".

What does that even mean?

How do you expect anyone to take your ilk seriously?

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

What does that even mean?

How do you expect anyone to take your ilk seriously?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703793804575512283152390778.html

Denerick

mgmt wrote: »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703793804575512283152390778.html

How irrelevant can you get? We're talking about Presidential assassinations. I made the point that given all the insanity and hysteria in the American body politic, some nutter, a tea partier, is going to try and kill the President.

Memnoch

mgmt wrote: »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703793804575512283152390778.html

Do you realise that "targetted" killing of "terrorists" is actually a right wing philosophy used by the current administration that jars quite strongly with the left, including those like myself who would otherwise support the Obama Administration.

Do you also realise that this policy is something that would not only be continued but done so fanatically by any right wing president/administration (excluding Ron Paul/true libertarians).

Are you actually paranoid enough to believe that anyone in the US who opposes Obama will be targetted and killed? Can you give even one example of someone you CLAIM this has happened to?

You are reaching new levels of crazy with each new post. I wonder if Fox News actually scrambles peoples brains as well as filling them with nonsense.

Overheal

mgmt wrote: »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703793804575512283152390778.html

Mmmhmm.

You notice the article doesn't mention who created the program, or how long its been running for?

You realize our last president suspended Habeus Corpus right? You know that the president before that was surrounded in controversy over administrative assassinations? Somehow I get the feeling it's been going on since the Cold War, or longer. Don't pretend Obama came into office and introduced it.

mgmt

Overheal wrote: »

Mmmhmm.

You notice the article doesn't mention who created the program, or how long its been running for?

You realize our last president suspended Habeus Corpus right? You know that the president before that was surrounded in controversy over administrative assassinations? Somehow I get the feeling it's been going on since the Cold War, or longer.

Hope?

Change?

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Somehow I get the feeling it's been going on since the Cold War, or longer.

Nikita: The Sequel.

Denerick

mgmt wrote: »

Hope?

Change?

The tea partiers came along to squash hope, and are doing their best to prevent change.

Black Swan

mgmt wrote: »

Hope?

Change?

The Republican Tea Party's version of "hope" and "change." The Tea Party is a movement within the GOP, not separate from it, because the vast majority of candidates running for Congressional office November 2010 backed by the Tea Party are registered Republicans, with only one or two token registered Democrats.

Memnoch

mgmt wrote: »

Hope?

Change?

On that point I agree with you. Obama has compromised on too many ideals in order to retain the middle ground.

Sadly, it's the kind of people who populate the tea party who would be the first to jump up and call him a coward and accuse him of compromising national security and claim this as greater proof that he is a secret "muslim terrorist," were he to stop this policy.

amacachi

Denerick I have to say I find your technique quite funny. Someone says Obama did something bad and then you say the Tea Party is one of the things preventing the "hope" and "change" that he was supposed to bring and has failed at. A large part of why fewer people worried about the deficit during Bush's tenure may, just may, be to do with the fact that until the end of his tenure there was no recession, and by the times things did go to **** the presidential campaign was pretty much underway.
I'm assuming you also think the fact well over 90% of Blacks in America who voted are thought to have voted for Obama as evidence that blacks are racist? I dunno, maybe the underrepresentation of Blacks in most areas of politics are part of why so few Tea Partiers are Black.

Overheal

mgmt wrote: »

Hope?

Change?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Apple? Hippopotamus?

Obama surely realized that no one president can make all of the sweeping changes he would like. The things he has done already have - as you display - terrified the conservative base. "I don't recognize my country anymore!" the voters cry.

So we could pick on a presidential executive authority to target and kill individuals which, as I have speculated, has probably been going on longer than the President has been alive, or, he can tackle the things that matter to us on a day to day basis, like Healthcare reform, and trying to stabilise the country after - I know Right-Wing voters hate to hear it - the previous administration screwed up the working economy created by the president before that. Obama inherited Bush's Administration, Bush Inherited Clinton's, Clinton inherited Bush Sr's, and so on. Thats how it works, regardless of how you wish to spin it. *If only* there was a magical restart button we pressed on January 20 every 4-8 years, but it doesn't work that way.

Nobody says much about the CARD act either, but theres another good thing thats been done.

Either way you're being terribly disingenuous if you wish to criticize the President for not Changing the country enough, but at the same time, are in revolt about the President changing the country. That I don't buy.

veritable

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Apple? Hippopotamus?

Obama surely realized that no one president can make all of the sweeping changes he would like. The things he has done already have - as you display - terrified the conservative base. "I don't recognize my country anymore!" the voters cry.

And with good reason they protest. BHO has put washington in control of much of the economy - healthcare, autos, wall street, etc. Unless you believe that a govt with such power is a good thing, then I would protest too.

Memnoch

veritable wrote: »

And with good reason they protest. BHO has put washington in control of much of the economy - healthcare, autos, wall street, etc. Unless you believe that a govt with such power is a good thing, then I would protest too.

More paranoid conspiracy theory.

The Auto industry is being (I believe) re-privatised and at a PROFIT to the tax payer. So the Obama administration helped the auto industry in a time of crisis, saved countless jobs, forced them to rethink their strategy, re-privatised them and recooped the money invested by the tax payer.

Wall Street - Right so unchecked financial shenanigans by greedy bankers caused one of the greatest financial crisis the modern western world has seen. Yet the same people who wanted the banker's heads on a plate, and who complain loudest about the wall street bail out accuse obama of taking control of the banks because he wants to put in place REGULATION that stops their unchecked greed from destroying the lives of innocent people again?

Health care - So trying to make sure that Health Insurers don't rip people off as they have been doing for a long time and that 30 million people don't go wihtout basic health care in the most powerful country in the world is too much government control?

Your paranoia of government takeover is nowhere near the actual reality. You're slipping way down the rabbit hole there Alice. Stop watching Glenn Beck and allow your brain to heal a little.